INTRODUCTORY The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
November 17, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, and HINDMAN were present. Member COBLE was
absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department
Heads were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular
meeting of November 3, 1997, as well as the minutes of the special meeting
of November 10, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion
made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Janku.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hindman explained that
three reports would be added under Reports and Petitions. Upon his request, Mr. Kruse
made the motion that Mr. Coffman be allowed to abstain from voting on B325-97. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote. The agenda, as amended, including
the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made
by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Janku.

SPECIAL ITEMS1. Missouri Treescape "Citation
of Merit Award" - Parks and Recreation Department. Mayor Hindman reported the
City had received an award for improving Missouri communities through tree
planting. He noted the plaque was received for planting approximately
400 trees along Forum Boulevard and Providence Road. The projects had
been funded by an ISTEA grant, private contributions and matching City funds. Mayor
Hindman further explained that the projects had been designed and the contract
administered by the Public Works Department. The Parks and Recreation
Department maintains the plantings and had submitted the application for
the award on behalf of the City. Mayor Hindman also thanked Councilmember
Kruse who had initiated the City's involvement in the program.

2. Final Report
of the U.S. Hot Air Balloon Championships - Vicki Russell. Vicki Russell, Missouri Balloon
Corporation executive board member, introduced her fellow board members and
the former employees of the Corporation. She thanked the Council for
their support and also for the City's initial investment of $30,000. Ms. Russell explained and
summarized the Corporation's goals for the Championships and its valuable
economic impact in the community for providing new tourism and national attention
for Columbia and Boone County, it brought resources together to demonstrate
the major achievements this community can accomplish, it was a fun, exciting,
and enjoyable event for the community, and it had been financially successful. As one of the sponsor partners,
Ms. Russell reported Gerke and Associates had conducted a random survey of
those people who had attended the event. The Gerke study estimated
the extended economic impact for all three years of the Championships at
$19.8 million. She noted that this figure only took into account the
spending of spectators and pilots. She said the spending by the Balloon
Corporation, volunteers, and sponsors were just as important for estimating
the overall impact. This amounts to at least $6.9 million, with an
overall impact of almost $27 million for the entire three years. Ms.
Russell presented a check in the amount of $30,000 to the City. Mayor Hindman pointed out
that this was truly representative of the partnership involved with the Championship. The
event involved the participation of the City, the County, the Balloon Corporation,
the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and numerous volunteers.

3. Percent for
Arts Program Recommendations. Ed Vought, Chair of the Cultural
Affairs Commission, spoke on behalf of the Standing Committee for Public
Art. He thanked the Council for their continued support of the arts
and said it had been a great benefit. He noted that the Council had
a copy of the Committee's recommendations, and added that these had been
unanimously supported by the Commission. In a couple of instances,
the Committee had recommended that funds be pooled. This is felt to
be in the best interest of creating a project which is of sufficient size
and scope to provide a meaningful contribution to the community, and to the
capital improvement project as a whole. Mr. Vought reported the Council
also received the Committee's recommendations pertaining to the procedures
for administration, artistic selection, and implementation. Sid Larson, 1408 Whitburn
Drive, is a member on the Standing Committee for Public Art. Mr. Larson
explained that these types of projects occur all over the world in major
cities and small communities. Mr. Campbell asked what type
of art might be contemplated for such activities. Mr. Larson said the
art should be appropriate to the site, can be maintained without excessive
cost and replacement, and representative of the entire community -- not targeted
in its content or design for special groups. Mr. Larson reported the
project should be something that will brighten the lives of people, causing
them to think and feel the humanity of this community. Mr. Larson said
the projects should be executed in a way that is consistent with the most
efficient way of cooperating with the city institutions for which these projects
will be built. Mr. Janku explained that
there are two options and, in view of the fact that one of the street projects
may be delayed, the question is whether the Council should go with the lower
amount or the higher amount, and possibly look to future projects to cover
the higher amount. His suggestion was for the latter. Mr. Beck said he had met
with the Committee and had suggested that a funding range be presented so
should construction not occur on one of the street projects, the Council
would have a second alternative on other venues of funding. He said
in some cases, like the Oakland Pool, the art aspect may be included as part
of the project. What is being proposed would give the Council the most
flexibility, and yet would be something workable. Mr. Janku asked if this would
preclude private donations. Mr. Beck said it would not, and that is
why he thought the higher number was being suggested. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the Council allocate up to $16,179 in funding, and not preclude going
beyond that if funds were to come from other sources. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote. Mr. Campbell said this would
make a significant addition to the community over time, and is very pleased
to see this first project move forward. Mr. Beck asked if Mr. Campbell
was including in his motion the establishment of the projects recommended
by the Cultural Affairs Commission that had been outlined in their report. Mr.
Campbell said that was his intention.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS None.

PUBLIC HEARINGSB312-97 Authorizing
construction of 8-inch water main serving Heritage Meadows and payment ofdifferential
costs between an 8-inch and 6-inch water main. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck said this is a fairly
routine project and in accordance with City policies. Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing. There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing. B312-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

B322-97 Authorizing
Change Order, assessing special assessments and approving Engineer'sFinal
Report for improvements to Eastwood Drive from Sylvan Lane to Clark Lane. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck said he had asked
the staff to review the potential benefits of the improvements due to lots
that front on two streets, and because of public comments that had been made
at an earlier hearing. Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing. Mr. Patterson explained that
the purpose of the hearing is to examine special benefits, and determine
if those benefits accrued to property abutting Eastwood Drive. If this
is found to be the case, special assessments will be levied against those
properties. Mr. Patterson explained Eastwood
Drive had recently been reconstructed to improved standards, essentially
as a result of a petition that was presented to the Council. He said
the public hearing had been held on November 20, 1995, and Council authorized
the staff to proceed with the project at that time. Prior to
reconstruction, Mr. Patterson reported that the street had been an unimproved
asphalt surface roadway, approximately 20 feet in width, located within an
existing 40-foot right-of-way with open ditches, driveway pipes, and no sidewalks
or curbs and gutters. Mr. Patterson noted that the improvement included
a 28-foot wide roadway with concrete curb and gutter. Due to the narrowness
of the corridor and the impact improvements would have on abutting properties,
the Council had approved the construction without sidewalks. The final total cost of the
project is $112,035.70, with funding being proposed to include $37,179.99
from tax bills to adjacent property owners at the rate of $26.12 per abutting
foot, $4,020.00 from the sanitary sewer utility, and $70,835.71 from the
general fund capital improvement program. Mr. Patterson explained that
the tax bill rate of $26.12 per abutting foot is set by ordinance and was
90% of the local pavement portion of the cost. He noted the local pavement
portion of the street cost was much less than one-half of the total construction
costs. He said the street was primarily being paid for from City sales
tax revenues. At the public hearing, Mr.
Patterson reported that questions were raised about relief for through lots
as a result of City ordinances that provide for accommodating lots which
front two streets. He displayed on the overhead the properties affected
by the project, and pointed out two of those staff felt the Council might
want to consider for some reduction in assessments based on the through lots
concept. City ordinances allow up to a 50% tax reduction for a through
lot which has no access on the rear lot when it is improved. If the
property maintains an access on it, Mr. Patterson said the ordinance would
allow a 30% reduction in the assessment. However, the ordinance specifies
R-1 lots, and the properties in question are zoned R-2 and, technically,
would not be in that category. He said the Council may make a determination
of reduced benefits that would be comparable to the R-1 reduction in assessments
if they chose to do so. Mr. Patterson stated if the
Council wished to make that determination in benefits, an amendment sheet
had been prepared that would reduce the tax bill assessment for part of Lot
19 by 50%, and part of Lot 18 by 30%. In order to make any assessments,
it is necessary for the Council to determine there have been special benefits
accrued that are at least equal to the proposed assessments. In making
that determination, Mr. Patterson suggested the Council consider that the
curb and guttering, along with the storm drainage piping and drop inlets,
have improved overall storm water management in the area, as well as improving
the appearance and the maintainability of the properties. For those
properties that access the street, new driveway approaches had been constructed,
improving access to area properties, and the new street surface enables improved
street maintenance -- particularly for cleaning and snow removal. Under
current City policies, Mr. Patterson explained that the abutting properties
would no longer be subject to tax bill maintenance, which could be as much
as $2.00 per foot per year. Mayor Hindman wondered if
it is required that the access to the street be limited in order for the
amendments to be appropriate. Mr. Patterson said that was what would
be required if the lots were under the provisions of an R-1 lot. Mr. Janku asked if the Council
should consider the two lots separately. Mayor Hindman said this could
be done. There being no public comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing. Mr. Beck said the reason
the amendment sheet had been prepared was to enable the Council to have alternatives
based on comments made earlier. He asked Mr. Patterson if the amendments
had been discussed with the property owners. Mr. Patterson said there
had been no commitments of any change from the original public hearing. Mayor Hindman asked if the
neighbors were aware of the amendment. Mr. Patterson said residents
had been notified of the hearing on the ordinance as it was first presented
to the Council. He said there was no notification given regarding the
amendment because it was presumptuous for staff to assume the Council would
consider it. The amendment is being brought to the Council simply as
an option. He said staff is recommending approval of the amendment
due to the configuration of the lots. Mr. Patterson said even though
the lots in question are not zoned R-1, they are set-up for single family
use. Mayor Hindman suggested that
the amendment carry with it the restriction on access. He assumed the
property owners would have to agree to the limitation in access before being
entitled to the discount. Mr. Patterson explained that there is a form
the property owners would need to sign if that restriction is included. Mr. Boeckmann explained the
Council would be saying that the properties have not been benefitted to the
full amount in order for the tax bills to be reduced. He understood
that the properties would have to give up access to Eastwood Drive. Mr.
Janku felt that Lot 18 clearly fronts on Eastwood Drive. It has an
improved driveway and he did not see the reason for an exception to this
particular property. Mr. Janku thought the other lot appeared to have
its access to Clark Lane and might merit the 50% reduction. Mr. Patterson distributed
photographs of the two properties. He said Lot 19 has no access on
the back (suggested for a 50% reduction), and Lot 18 has access on both the
front and back (suggested for a 30% reduction). Mr. Beck explained that the
policy had initially been designed for the project on Fairview Road. Many
of those homes had yards that backed onto Fairview, yet had no connection
to the street. As a compromise when the Fairview project was tax billed,
the property owners agreed to never use Fairview as an access to their garages. He
said residents were still benefitting from the project because the dust and
noise problems had been eliminated. Mr. Janku argued that this
project is the exact opposite of the one Mr. Beck just mentioned. The
City would want residents to use the improved street, and the one house
has direct access to it. Mayor Hindman said it would be preferable
for residents to exit in and out from Eastwood. Mr. Campbell said that
was correct, so the Council should not pass an ordinance limiting access
to Eastwood. Mr. Janku said he wanted to see access restricted on Clark
Lane. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B322-97 be amended per the amendment sheet regarding Lot 18 (reducing
the tax bill from $2,481.40 to $1,736.98). The motion was seconded
by Kruse. Mayor Hindman asked if the
Council would want to add to the amendment that Clark Lane access be restricted. Mr.
Campbell asked whether the entrance to the garage opened onto Eastwood. Mr.
Patterson said access to the garage is on Eastwood. He suggested that
the Council consider the benefits on Eastwood Drive because if there was
a question on the tax bill, that would be the issue -- did the property owner
benefit by the improvements to Eastwood Drive. Mr. Patterson felt by
tying Clark Lane into this, the Council could be getting away from the real
issues of their tax bill authority. Mr. Campbell said his motion would
remain as stated. The motion made by Mr. Campbell,
the 30% reduction on Lot 18, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved by voice
vote. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B322-97 be further amended per the amendment sheet regarding Lot 19
and the 50% reduction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved
unanimously by voice vote. B322-97, as amended, was
given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A) Installation
of traffic signals at the intersection of 10th & Rogers. Item A was read by the Clerk. Mr. Beck said this public
hearing had been continued from previous meetings. Staff suggests that
the hearing be closed, and the City continues to work with the College staff
looking for alternatives to a traffic signal. He said the College was
supportive of this approach. He said if the Council concurred with
that suggestion, the staff would work with the College and then come back
with another public hearing for a project probably occurring during the next
construction season. Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing. There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing. Mayor Hindman said he was
very supportive of the development of innovative pedestrian crossings, and
this involves a significant location. He had met with the President
and staff members of Columbia College, who were very enthusiastic about a
crossing. Mayor Hindman also met with the City staff and felt this
was an opportunity to develop a demonstration project that could be utilized
throughout the community. Mayor Hindman made the motion
that staff be directed to not proceed with plans and specifications for the
traffic signal, and instead meet with college representatives to examine
alternatives to installing a traffic signal at this location. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(B) Storm water
drainage improvements in the Mill Creek/Rockbridge Subdivision area. Mr. Beck explained that this
fairly large project was located in south central Columbia involving approximately
$780,000. Mr. Patterson explained that
the purpose of the public hearing was for the Council to determine the necessity
for proceeding with the project. He reminded the Council that this
project had been identified as a very high priority need in the ballot issue
that established the storm water utility. It is currently in the storm
water utility capital improvement program. Mr. Patterson reported planning
for the project had taken two years. In November of 1995, a questionnaire
was sent to 125 residents of the Rockbridge Subdivision and property owners
that were affected by this proposed project. He reported that staff
received 97 responses to the questionnaire, which had asked people to identify
what problems had been observed in the subdivision related to storm water
drainage. After receiving the questionnaires and tabulating the results,
Mr. Patterson explained that staff held a public meeting with the neighborhood
in March of 1996, which was attended by more than 40 persons from the neighborhood. At
that time, the problems in response to the questionnaires had been discussed
in more detail. This had been followed with one-on-one meetings in
the neighborhood to be certain the staff understood what was perceived to
be the problems with drainage in the subdivision. Mr. Patterson
stated staff found that the problems ranged from backwater ponding of water,
to structural flooding of residences. As a result of the surveys, inventories,
and discussions, staff prepared preliminary plans and had a second neighborhood
meeting in September of this year. Again, there was a large number
of people in attendance. The proposed preliminary plans had been presented,
specific concerns were discussed, and staff followed up with subsequent one-on-one
meetings with those who still had questions. Mr. Patterson explained that
the proposed improvements for the drainage problems in Rockbridge Subdivision
include replacing undersized drainage pipes, constructing new drainage drop
inlets, new segments of pipes, grading in the hardening of some sections
of the open channel, and reinforcement of channel embankments with different
types of treatment. He said staff proposes to do some diversion of
existing drainage patterns and, where velocities and space permit, it is
the intent to retain the natural characteristics of the channel. This
will not be possible in all segments. It has also been proposed to
purchase an existing vacant lot in the subdivision to be used for an overflow
area, to convert an existing wet well retention structure (north of the subdivision)
into a dry cell, and to improve the detention capabilities of the structure. He
said these improvements would involve the removal of several trees and quite
a bit of brush and shrubbery. Mr. Patterson said the staff would be
working with individual property owners on the replacement of the landscaping
that is to be removed, as well as developing a plan for placement of additional
landscaping at locations that would accommodate it. The project is
to be funded entirely from the storm water utility, and this phase is estimated
to be $780,000. Mr. Patterson stated staff is recommending that the
City proceed with the project as described. Regarding the waterway that
parallels Alhambra, Mr. Campbell said he had some concern about the additional
water, or higher rate of water, possibly causing erosion in the waterway. Mr.
Patterson said that had been considered. The pipe from El Cortez Drive
will be extended approximately two lots deep between the houses. When
it makes the angle corner turn, the pipes will go into an open channel. This
is one of the locations where the velocity will require channel hardening. Mr.
Patterson said rip rap, versalock, or something of that nature will be used. It
is the intent to work with the property owners within each given segment
to come up with the particular channel treatment that is felt to be most
appropriate for each section. In addition, Mr. Patterson stated further
down stream staff thought enough area was available for channel grading. The
open channel could possibly be maintained using geotechnical fabric. Staff
also believed this procedure could be used between existing structures located
below Valencia Drive. This is also the area in which it is proposed
that an additional lot be purchased to work on slowing down, spreading, and
retaining a natural channel. Mr. Patterson said there may be some fabric
hardening, but staff did not think a paved channel would be necessary in
that location. Mr. Campbell asked about
fabric hardening. Mr. Patterson explained that it is the use of geotechnicals
that can be placed underneath, with the grass and root structure coming up. He
said it helps retain the root mass without subjecting it to erosion. Mr. Janku asked about the
versalock bricks and hardening. Mr. Patterson said versalock bricks
would be used in some places, which would be augmented with rip rap, or rip
rap would be used instead of versalock. Mr. Janku asked if any traditional
channels were anticipated. Mr. Patterson said none were expected, but
if there are any, they would certainly be inconspicuous. Mayor Hindman said a group
had been formed in connection with the Again Street project. He asked
if that group had ever been contacted regarding this project. Mr. Patterson
said staff had been working closely with that group for over a year, and
Mr. Barrow, a representative of the group, had been involved in their meetings. Mayor Hindman understood
one of the aspects of this project was replanting. Mr. Patterson said
that was correct. Mayor Hindman asked if any savings could be possible
through some kind of volunteer arrangement where the City provided the plants
and worked with the neighbors to do the planting, rather than contracting
it out. Mr. Patterson said that was a possibility, and generally staff
tries to work with the individual property owners. Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing. Tony Holland, 306 W. El Cortez,
spoke in support of the project and said it was much needed because of the
severe stormwater problems in the area. He commended Mr. Patterson
for the manner in which he went about notifying the neighborhood and gathering
the information. Dale Smith Overt, 101 E.
El Cortez, said she had been living out of state and had just come back in
October. She was worried about possibly losing a lot of trees. She
indicated that she would be unable to plant trees, and asked that this be
done for her. Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing. Mayor Hindman was appreciative
of the comments regarding the staff and their willingness to work with the
neighborhood. Mr. Kruse thanked Mr. Patterson
and his staff for a great job. He had been present at the first neighborhood
meeting, and had not received many calls regarding this situation since the
process had been initiated. Mr. Kruse reported this improvement was
much needed and long-awaited. Mr. Campbell noted that the
neighborhood does have some residents getting up in years, and tree planting
may be challenging for them. Mayor Hindman said volunteer
tree planting is done in many communities, and volunteers should be used
whenever possible. He reminded those present that every dime spent
on this project, would leave that much less for other neighborhoods with
stormwater problems. Mr. Kruse made the motion
that the staff be directed to proceed with plans and specifications. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Voluntary
annexation of property located 200 feet east of Rock Quarry and 700
feet south ofNifong,
Abernathie property. Item C was read by the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that this
27 1/2 acre tract of land is located in southeast Columbia. He said
the developers have been discussing preparations for a planned unit retirement
community. Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing. There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing. Mayor Hindman explained that
no action was required on this item.

OLD BUSINESSB253-97 Amending
Chapter 14 of the City Code to make LaSalle Place a one-way street. The bill was read by the
Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that the
Police Department had received some feedback asking that this adjustment
not be made. The recommendation is to defeat this bill. Mr. Campbell noted that Ms.
Coble could not be present this evening, but had passed along her wishes
that this be defeated. B253-97 was read with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill
defeated.

B321-97 Approving
final report and authorizing change order No.'s 1 and 2 to the contract
withDon
Schneiders Excavating Company for Again Street Drainage Project. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that a
dry cell stormwater detention basin, and the enlargement of some of the pipes
under Gary and Ash streets had been completed in the area. The total
cost of the project is $383,575.00. A stormwater grant had been received
for $72,000.00, and the remainder of the project will be paid from the stormwater
utility and sanitary sewer funds. B321-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

B325-97 Authorizing
an agreement with Aquila Power Corporation for electric power service. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that this
agreement is primarily the result of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
opening competition among the electric industry on the wholesale and retail
levels. Mr. Malon explained that
Aquila Power Corporation is a company that is a marketer, which happens to
be a solely owned subsidiary of Utilicorp, dealing only in wholesale transactions. Aquila
is not a utility, and does not own any assets other than a trading floor
in the Kansas City area where energy futures and transmission contracts are
bought and sold. Mr. Malon said it is a new entity typical of what
might be seen not only in the wholesale business, but in the retail business. Staff
would like to begin working with some of these companies to find out how
the trading floors work and so on. This particular contract, does not
obligate either Aquila or the City to any specific transaction. He
said anything the City does under this agreement would primarily be in the
nature of economy transactions, similar to what is done with other utilities. Mr.
Malon explained an enabling agreement is necessary to provide a legal basis
to buy and sell energy, and make collections if there is a default. This
ordinance would accomplish that. Mr. Janku asked if the City
would be the intermediary. Mr. Malon said this was strictly for the
City Water and Light Department dispatchers as they are setting up, hour
by hour, looking for economy energy sales on a daily basis. He said
this would be another source that would be called. B325-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: COFFMAN. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

B326-97 Authorizing
agreement with Crawford, Murphy & Tilly for engineering services
for work atColumbia
Regional Airport. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that this
agreement would provide engineering services for the rehabilitation work
on the north cargo apron at the Regional Airport, primarily used by Airborne
Express. The total cost is estimated at $925,000. Mr. Beck added
that 90% would be a federal match. The engineering contract is approximately
$120,000, and had been budgeted for this fiscal year. B326-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

CONSENT AGENDA The following bills were
given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.

B313-97 Accepting
conveyance for utility purposes from GKC Investments and Flat BranchDevelopment.B314-97 Accepting
conveyances for utility purposes from Robert and Jan Hulett and Paris RoadProperties.B317-97 Vacating
sewer and utility easements located within Liberty Square Subdivision, Block
1.B319-97 Approving
final plat of Belmont Park, Plat 3, a major subdivision.B320-97 Authorizing
right of use permit to allow Godas Development to install electrical conduitunderneath
Lillian Drive right-of-way.B342-97 Authorizing
an agreement with Missouri Department of Health for postponing sexualinvolvement
education; appropriating funds.R184-97 Setting
a public hearing on special assessments against properties specially benefitingby
public improvements to Arbor Drive and Arbor Court.R185-97 Setting
a public hearing on voluntary annexation of property located east of BearfieldRoad
and south of Nifong Boulevard.

The bills were given third
reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Bills declared enacted
and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

NEW BUSINESSR186-97 Renewal
agreement with Columbia Online Information Network to provide Internet serviceto
Columbia residents. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that this
is commonly referred to as the COIN Program, with the City's annual share
being $22,500. He said that amount had been budgeted for this fiscal
year. In view of the rapid changes
that have been made in Internet and Internet access, Mr. Campbell asked if
COIN still played the same role it did five years ago, and wondered whether
it was needed. Mr. Beck said he was told that it was needed. Before
an agreement is prepared for next year, Mr. Campbell said he would like to
have that question raised. Marilyn McCleod, head of
COIN Administrative Services, thanked the City for their past support. She
said it was still a very heavily used service that provided service to thousands
of people, both text-based and graphics access. Ms. McCleod thanked
the City's Finance Department for taking care of COIN's books for several
years. She said the COIN staff was now able to do this, but the Finance
Department had been very generous in the past. Mr. Coffman felt that COIN
was a wonderful asset to our community, and said he personally knew many
people who either cannot afford commercial services or find that it is very
convenient to use COIN. He was hopeful that the program could be continued
for a few more years. Mayor Hindman commented that
he was attending a meeting of the Economic Development Finance Board in Southern
Missouri, and one of the most important points made was that the City must
be absolutely sure it is able to provide the services needed in connection
with communications access. The vote on R186-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: COBLE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

The following bills were
introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given
first reading:

B327-97 Authorizing
an agreement with MO Department of Health for inspections of day carefacilities;
appropriating funds.B328-97 Variance
to the subdivision regulations regarding the requirement for sidewalkconstruction
- Dwight Bingham Subdivision.B329-97 Rezoning
property located on the north side of Southland Drive, west of Rock QuarryRoad,
from A-1 to R-1.B330-97 Final
plat of Forum Chapel Plaza, a major subdivision.B331-97 Replat
of Lot B of Taylors Subdivision.B332-97 Final
plat of Ewing Industrial Park, a minor subdivision.B333-97 Accepting
conveyances from Hulett, Ferellgas, JJS Partnership, Jeffrey E. SmithPartnership,
and Godas Development.B334-97 Amending
Chapter 13 of the City Code to occupations licenses; eliminating requirementfor
the issuance of a license insignia.B335-97 Authorizing
right of use permit which allows the University to install chilled water
linesunderneath
Rollins Road.B336-97 Approving
engineer's final report for sidewalk construction on Arbor Drive and ArborCourt;
levying and assessing special assessments for properties benefiting fromconstruction.B337-97 Defining
management of trees within the City.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS(A) Volunteer Quarterly
Report. Mr. Campbell noted that the
volunteer hourly figures were very impressive. Mr. Beck said the program
had been very successful thus far. He explained that the Office of
Volunteer Services would be doing more work this next year on a community
trust and city trust program to include possible funding for some projects. He
said the City had already received some gifts of land. Mr. Campbell suggested that
the Council be presented with a little more detail as to what some of the
activities volunteers are contributing their time for.

(B) Proposed Revision
to Chapter 29 - Communications Antennas and Towers. Mr. Beck explained that the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the staff had been working on a draft
ordinance as requested by the Council. He said the ordinance has been
prepared, and inquired whether the Council would like to have the issue placed
on the agenda for public input, or whether a work session should be scheduled
first. Mr. Janku said if it would
not delay the process, he would prefer to have a work session. He said
the Council is trying to move quickly because of a perceived need for such
regulation within the community. It was decided the issue
might be discussed at the next pre-Council dinner meeting.

(C) Leasing Space
on Walnut Water Tower for Cell Antennas. Mr. Beck said the City had
received inquiries from various companies regarding this lease arrangement. He
had also been attending some meetings with the Missouri Municipal League
as it relates to telecommunications in communities. One of the goals
discussed had been to keep the number of towers to a minimum, particularly
in the Central Business District area. He said quite a few of the companies
are trying to recognize requests of local governmental agencies to do just
that. Mr. Beck reported the City had received two requests to utilize
the Walnut Street water tower. The staff had been asked to gather as
many leases that are known around the state to see how other cities handled
this issue, and also to see what financial benefits might accrue from this
lease agreement. He said the most important aspect was reducing the
number of towers, although there had been some discussion as to what the
companies would pay the City. Mr. Beck pointed out that the City has
to repaint the towers from time to time, in addition to other types of work. It
is thought that perhaps a portion of the money that would be paid to the
City for the lease would offset some of the regular maintenance costs. The
big question is whether or not to pursue the lease of City towers. The
Law Department has been looking at some possible agreements, and thought
one should be drafted specifically for Columbia. He explained that
one of the companies had been very interested in utilizing towers in Columbia,
and staff had been advising them of the status of such an arrangement. Mr. Janku thought it was
a good idea and reiterated that the goal was to try to minimize the number
of towers in our community. He noted that the City would not be trying
to make an exorbitant amount of money off of the lease, just recover costs
and possibly do some other good things. Mr. Janku said when an ordinance
is adopted on communication towers, it would be appropriate to have an accompanying
resolution expressing the Council's policy. If the Council would like
for the staff to proceed, Mr. Beck suggested that a motion be made. He
said the Council could request proposals from the potential users of the
towers. Mr. Janku made the motion
that the staff be directed to formally present a lease to the Council and
also to request proposals from potential users of the towers. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D) Proposed Revision
to Zoning Ordinance - Institutional Zoning District. Mr. Beck said at the request
of the Council, the Planning and Development Department had put together
a potential definition for this type of zoning district that would involve
private colleges, possibly hospitals, and some R-1 uses. He said the
next step, if the Council wants to proceed with establishing this special
district, would be to refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hancock said staff had
included example ordinances from other cities to ensure the Council understood
where the material had been obtained from. Mrs. Crockett asked how hospitals
are presently zoned. Mr. Hancock thought hospitals are zoned office,
or maybe higher. Mr. Campbell said the primary
issue is that some colleges have no zoning, except whatever the underlying
zone might have been in the 60's. Mr. Hancock asked if staff
should limit the proposed ordinance to private colleges and the like, and
include hospitals. Mr. Campbell said hospitals are very different as
far as he was concerned -- it is a commercial use. He was more concerned
with the not-for-profit institutions and where there is no underlying zone. He
wanted to know what would happen if these institutions were to dispose of
their property. Mr. Janku asked if the ordinance
would be limited to colleges, or whether it would also apply to other educational
institutions -- like high schools or churches. Mr. Campbell said it
should apply to not-for-profit organizations. There was a discussion about
whether or not hospitals were not-for-profits. It was decided some
were and some were not. Mr. Hancock said that distinction could be
clarified in the ordinance. Mr. Campbell suggested that the Council
refer the issue to Planning and Zoning and let them sort it out. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously
by voice vote.

(E) HR1534. Mr. Beck explained that this
issue pertained to federal legislation regarding local land use. The
bill is in the process of being acted upon by Congress, after having passed
the House. Mr. Beck said the Council had asked that a letter be sent
to the two Senators, and that had been done. He pointed out that this
legislation has been opposed by the National League of Cities and the National
Governor's Conference. It is felt that it takes away a lot of the local
discretion in land use decisions and turns it over to the federal courts. Mr.
Beck said the current system is thought to be adequate by many people who
have worked in this area for years. Mr. Janku thought the phrase
used to describe the legislation, "taking legislation", was noteworthy. He
said it could have a lot of impact on the traditional decisions local governments
make, particularly involving zoning issues. Mr. Campbell found it interesting
that the Congress had been saying for the last several years that they wanted
to return more power to the local government, and this legislation would
definitely reduce the power of local government. He said Congress had
also indicated they wanted to reduce the number of lawsuits. Mr. Campbell
said this bill would probably increase the number. Mr. Coffman agreed and said
it was a massive centralization of federal power. Mr. Kruse said there was
also the suggestion that the Council request a resolution, that would be
forwarded to the Senators and Congressman Hulshoff should the legislation
be brought back to the House, and he thought this should be done. Mr. Kruse made the motion
that staff be directed to prepare a resolution stating the intent of the
Council, and that it be forwarded to the relevant political representatives. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(F) Video Cameras
Surveillance at Signal Lights. Mr. Beck said the Police
Department had been asked to review video surveillance in other cities, and
to determine if this alternative would work for our community. Chief Botsford said in the
review process, staff could find very few areas that have used this method
long enough for any judgment to be made on its success. He thought,
if advertised highly enough, there would be a deterrent affect to it. Although,
Chief Botsford thought the actual prosecution of people was problematic. He
noted that the cities utilizing the system have special laws passed through
the legislature enabling them to ticket the owner of a car as opposed to
the driver -- similar to parking violations. He assumed that would
have to be done here also. Chief Botsford reported the camera surveillance
would require a lot of staff time to process the video tape, in an attempt
to identify particular cars in violation, and to identify tag numbers so
that notices could be sent out. Chief Botsford said the cameras were
very expensive, as was the staff time. Staff has been unable to identify
any community that could give the system a high enough recommendation for
the Police Department to recommend it to the Council. Mr. Campbell thanked Chief
Botsford for the report. Mayor Hindman said he receives
numerous calls about the number of red lights and stop sign violations, especially
in neighborhoods. He thought this raised the issue as to whether or
not there are alternative ways to deal with the problem. He urged people
in neighborhoods who feel there is a problem with motorists not obeying stop
signs or speeding to contact the City. Mr. Janku said some communities
have volunteers involved in traffic monitoring. Mr. Campbell thought this
was a severe enough problem that while he appreciated the idea of having
people report violations, although often times this evolves into neighborhood
disputes, he wanted something done. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the staff pick one location in the City in which this appears to be
a relatively common problem, and to come back with a recommendation as to
what could be done in terms of traffic circles or other traffic calming devices. The
motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(G) Intra-Departmental
Transfer of Funds Request. Report accepted.

(H) Skateboard Park. Mr. Beck said staff wanted
to get this issue back on the table, and had discussed the possibility of
setting a public hearing for the second meeting in December. He said
any work on this project would probably occur in the spring, but said final
decisions and paperwork should be taken care of during the winter months. Mr. Kruse asked if this would
be a public hearing before the Council. Mr. Beck said that was the
intention. Regarding the concern about
the loss of tennis courts, Mr. Janku suggested using the old abandoned volleyball
court on the east side of the park. He said it was somewhat smaller
than the tennis courts, although, the tennis courts are actually dual courts
not triple courts. He said it would be a good starting point, and added
there is room for expansion if needed. In addition, utilizing the volleyball
courts will not remove the two existing tennis courts from potential use. Mr.
Janku reported Oakland School does use the courts for gym classes. Mr. Beck asked if there would
be a problem with setting the public hearing for alternative areas within
Oakland park. Mr. Janku thought that would be fine, but felt more information
would be needed because cost estimates were not available regarding possible
use of the volleyball court. Mr. Green said the volleyball
court would not be as economical because it is not fenced and there is no
lighting. Mr. Janku said he was not certain why the park needed to
be fenced. Mr. Green said that was almost a necessity for such an activity,
and it is something the skaters had requested. The skateboard committee
also requested lighting so the park could be used until it closes for the
day. Mr. Janku responded that there is lighting not too far from that
location. It was estimated that a fence would cost about $4,000, and
it would cost approximately $10,000 for lighting. Mr. Green said the
skateboarders prefer to have the park fenced to keep people from running
or riding a bike across the obstacle course. Mr. Janku asked whether
the fence would be used to keep people out. Mr. Green said the park
would not be locked at night. Mr. Janku understood that a six or eight
foot fence would not be necessary, and its purpose is just to keep moving
people or vehicles from interfering with the activities. Mr. Green
said that was correct. Mr. Green understood the
Council wanted the public hearing held on all options that had been submitted. Mr.
Beck reported that would include the two locations in Oakland Park. Mr. Janku made the motion
that a resolution be prepared setting a public hearing on the 15th of December. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(I) Wheelchair Traffic
Safety. Mr. Beck explained that a
few months ago the Mayor had appointed the Disabilities Commission. The
Commission is working on several issues at this point, one of which is the
wheelchair traffic safety issue. He said there is no action required
at this time, but the Commission's recommendation had suggested co-sponsoring
a safety campaign and the distribution of reflective materials. Mrs. Crockett said she had
originally brought the issue up about wheelchairs traveling at night. She
had safety concerns and felt the wheelchairs needed to be lighted. However,
she would accept the Commission's recommendation that they did not feel lighting
was necessary. Mr. Campbell thanked the
Commission for their work on the issue.

(J) Street Closure
Request. Mr. Beck explained that this
request was from the moving company who would be assisting a University office
in relocating. The request is to close Locust Street, between 6th and
7th Streets, on November 24, 25, and 26 from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. Staff
recommends approval. Mr. Janku made the motion
that the request be granted as presented. The motion was seconded by
Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(K) Parking Meter
Hoods. Mr. Beck explained that when
the parking rates had been changed several months ago, staff began reviewing
various other ordinances related to parking. He said it was noted that
the rates for the issuance of hoods for various utilities had not been increased. The
suggestion is that adjustments be made to these rates, consistent to what
was done with the other rates downtown. Mr. Beck pointed out that currently,
utilities are probably paying a slightly higher rate than what is normally
collected in meters by having it used all day, but on the other hand, it
is a privilege to have the meter available. It is thought that a percentage
increase would be appropriate. Mr. Beck said when the issue had been
discussed at the staff level, a question was raised whether the Special Business
District should be asked to review some alternatives put together by staff. He
said staff would like to see the District bring a recommendation back to
the Council. Mr. Campbell asked if the
Central Columbia Association could also review the alternatives. Mr.
Beck said both the Special Business District and the Central Columbia Association
could be involved. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the staff be directed to prepare an ordinance for review by the Special
Business District and the Central Columbia Association for their comments
to the Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously
by voice vote.

(L) The Hamlet Stormwater. Mr. Beck said the Public
Works Department had prepared a fairly detailed report after having worked
with the neighborhood. This is a fairly large project, and it is felt
the Council may want to discuss it as to the future policy of who is going
to pay for what, and how it will be handled with developers. Mr. Beck
inquired whether the Council wanted to have a work session on the issue. Mr.
Campbell said he would like to have it put on the Council's work session
list for discussion in the relatively near future to ensure the work could
be done during the next building season. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the staff be directed to schedule a work session to discuss the issue. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Upon receiving the majority
vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the following
Commissions:

COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC Mr. Coffman said the Council
had received some good news at dinner regarding the intersection of Broadway
and Old 63. He had previously requested that the City look into a turn
signal at both the east and west intersections on Broadway. It had
been reported the signals could be installed for the relatively small cost
of $450. Mr. Janku said the vagrant
problem at Tenth and Hitt may have been resolved with the temporary fence. He
felt the fence needed to be upgraded in some way, and asked that the staff
work on a proposal which could potentially involve the new neighborhood association
formed in the area, to possibly adopt the area and assist in its upkeep. Mr. Campbell said about a
month ago the Council received a letter from the Board of Adjustment suggesting
that the definition of "non-conforming" use be revised or reviewed. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
recommendation and a report back to the Council. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote. Mr. Campbell explained that
when he had been on the Planning and Zoning Commission several years ago,
they systematically reviewed all statutes of the City in regard to zoning,
and all of the subdivision ordinances. Mr. Campbell had recently inquired
whether the Commission had continued with this review process, and Mr. Hancock
indicated it had not. Mr. Campbell noted there have been numerous additions
to the statutes in the meantime. He strongly suspected there are parts
of ordinances that had holes in them and needed updating. He questioned
whether some of the permitted uses in the various commercial zones were appropriate
for today. Mr. Campbell asked for the opinion of the staff and the
Commission as to whether or not it was felt there should be a thorough, comprehensive
review initiated. He realized it would be a long-term project that
would require a large amount of work. Mr. Campbell asked for a staff
report. Mr. Janku said he had recently
heard a discussion about how the zoning ordinance sometimes has items included
that really are not zoning related, but are perhaps public safety issues. He
said the thrust of the discussion was that zoning ordinances are subject
to quite a bit of challenge. The suggestion had been to separate public
safety related issues from the zoning regulations, basically isolating them
from the type of challenge zoning ordinances often get. He said if
it is thought the undertaking of a massive review is necessary, this might
be the time to look at separating the issues. Mr. Campbell said the reason
he brought the issue up at this time is because there is an agenda item coming
up at the next meeting (on Lindell), in which there is a large lot on the
back side of a house that fronts on Broadway, and it is being proposed to
divide this tract into two very small lots. He thought one of the questions
that should be addressed is the appropriate size of a residential lot. He
questioned if it should take the surrounding neighborhood into account. He
said two small lots would not fit at all into the character of that particular
neighborhood. Mr. Campbell said as land prices have gotten higher,
the Council has been seeing increasing numbers of requests for undersized
lots. Mr. Beck said when the definition
of tier lot was set up, it was to prevent many of the larger lots on the
north side of Broadway from becoming tier lots. He said in the case
Mr. Campbell is referring to, there is a street involved. He said this
will be a new challenge. Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock
Quarry Road, said that she is present at the request of Richard Simpson,
the new President of the Grindstone Rock Quarry Neighborhood Association. She
spoke in regards to the McKnight rezoning request scheduled for discussion
at the next meeting. Ms. Pritchard read a letter from Mr. Simpson on
behalf of the Neighborhood Association. The letter noted that only
six of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners had been present the evening
the Commission voted on the issue. Because the vote resulted in a split,
there will be no recommendation. The neighborhood said they realized
the Council was only dealing with a rezoning at this point, but wanted them
to know there was more at stake. In anticipation of the zoning change,
the letter said that a preliminary plat had been filed for the property by
Mastermark Builders. The plat calls for a residential development of
18 houses on 7,000 square foot lots, the maximum this acreage will allow
under R-1 zoning. The point is that if the Council were to approve
the R-1 zoning, they would be hard-pressed to deny the preliminary plat based
on that zoning. There are concerns that the subdivision's entrance
would exit in the middle of the block through a residential lot onto Southland
Drive; that it would double the number of homes and traffic in the Southland
neighborhood; it would leave the current homeowners paying for probable street
improvements because only one of the new homes would front Southland Drive;
and that the density, character, and value of the new homes would be totally
out of character with the rest of this well-established neighborhood. The
Association said residents could not support another high density development
in this already over-developed neighborhood. The letter also said that
the proposed rezoning and plat plan were unanimously rejected by the 20 voting
members present at a meeting. The meeting adjourned at
10:00 p.m. Respectfully
submitted,